Catchers Calling Games

[Football23]

Is a catchers ability to call a game simulated somehow in OOTP? Does it have to do with his intelligence or cathcer ability? Does it have an effect on the pitcher? (i.e. making him better or worse)

[sfgiants88]

This isn't currently in the game. Feel free to post it in the suggestions forum if you feel is should be, though!

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by Football23

Is a catchers ability to call a game simulated somehow in OOTP?

Yes, that would be interesting. I'm sure many of us would like to see pitch selection as part of in-game control (unless that's getting a bit too animated for OOTP). Your suggestion dovetails nicely with that; do you let the catcher call the game if he has the necessary experience or do you take over and throw a curve on 3 balls, 2 strikes? Assuming the pitcher has a curve in his arsenal, maybe not. Nice.

[gregb7]

Completely totally agree with this!!!!!
It's what I've been waiting for for like oh um 10 years or so........
The heart of baseball is the confrontation between the pitcher/catcher
and the batter.

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

Yes, that would be interesting. I'm sure many of us would like to see pitch selection as part of in-game control (unless that's getting a bit too animated for OOTP). Your suggestion dovetails nicely with that; do you let the catcher call the game if he has the necessary experience or do you take over and throw a curve on 3 balls, 2 strikes? Assuming the pitcher has a curve in his arsenal, maybe not. Nice.

[tcblcommish]

I have been trying to get this kind of idea in since v3.

I keep getting the arguement that there is no proof that a catcher can be better for a pitcher than another. I disagree with that and say that I'd rather have Tony Pena behind the plate than Mike Piazza.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by gregb7

Completely totally agree with this!!!!!
It's what I've been waiting for for like oh um 10 years or so........
The heart of baseball is the confrontation between the pitcher/catcher
and the batter.

Well, like sfgiants88 says, you and Football 23 should hightail it over to the suggestions forum before it closes, just to check. Might mosey over there myself . . .

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by tcblcommish

I have been trying to get this kind of idea in since v3.

I keep getting the arguement that there is no proof that a catcher can be better for a pitcher than another. I disagree with that and say that I'd rather have Tony Pena behind the plate than Mike Piazza.

Even if we didn't get pitch control in the game, I still like Football23's idea, say a "pitcher-handling" rating that grows with experience and factors into team pitching performance. Who gives you the argument that this is not a given in baseball?

[tcblcommish]

I can't remember who it was exactly butI have asked every season for it and every season I get the same response. Maybe more pipes will make a better brass section

[tysok]

Originally Posted by tcblcommish

I can't remember who it was exactly butI have asked every season for it and every season I get the same response. Maybe more pipes will make a better brass section

Probably the same people that constantly say that a players mentality has nothing to do with his performance.

I wouldn't take baseball analysts opinions on the matter as anything more than that, opinions. But when you can constantly, and I do mean constantly, hear explayers talk about it... that's enough weight to the argument to tip the balance infinitely to the fact that it exists.
Catchers being better or worse at "calling a game" is one such thing. It does exist.

[topsixrows]

Originally Posted by tysok

Probably the same people that constantly say that a players mentality has nothing to do with his performance.

I wouldn't take baseball analysts opinions on the matter as anything more than that, opinions. But when you can constantly, and I do mean constantly, hear explayers talk about it... that's enough weight to the argument to tip the balance infinitely to the fact that it exists.
Catchers being better or worse at "calling a game" is one such thing. It does exist.

Over his career, Piazza has contributed to countless more wins than Tony Pena; despite Piazza's weak defense/arm.

Ex players say and believe in many things that is not true about baseball. Its part of the hand me down culture. But if anyone has a study that shows this exists, please post it. The statistics wouldn't be that hard to find to prove this.

"Calling a game" is dictated by the scouting reports, and count situations and pitcher strengths/weaknesses. The pitcher has the ultimate say on what pitches are thrown.

[Rainers]

Last year with the Yankees, Randy Johnson started the year with Posada catching for him. After begin the season with a losing record Joe Torre (an ex catcher) went with Flaherty, the backup catcher, and Johnson went the rest of the season with a winning record. If catchers have no affect on pitchers, how do we explain stories like these? And this is only one example of a pitcher who is more comfortable with a catcher. In Bob Ueker's book he talks about the relationship between catcher and a pitcher. One of the most interesting things he said was that a pitcher could be a jerk off the field, but on the field the particular pitcherand him would work very well together, and sometimes the pitcher would ask the manager for a specific catcher throughout the season. It is a factor and should be considered in some form or fashion when it comes to a game surrounding baseball.

Rainers

[Carplos]

I wouldn't take baseball analysts opinions on the matter as anything more than that, opinions. But when you can constantly, and I do mean constantly, hear explayers talk about it... that's enough weight to the argument to tip the balance infinitely to the fact that it exists.
Catchers being better or worse at "calling a game" is one such thing. It does exist.

We should bring back the clutch rating, and throw in Veteran Presence and Proven Closer ratings.

Maybe a Joe Morgan-mode where the team with the highest average speed rating win the championship.

[Sweed]

I think the problem comes in how do you quantify it in the game? How much effect does it have? How would historical leagues handle it, are all Lahman C's just given a random rating? What happens when Johnny Bench comes in at 20\80?

With regard to Pena\Piazza, IMHO the reason you might want Pena (I woldn't because Piazza will help you more with his bat then Pena's defense) is because he catches, blocks, and throws better. Not because he calls a curve when Piazza would call a FB.

YMMV but if you want it in the game I think you'll have to show some kind of solid reasoning and how it should be done.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by Sweed

I think the problem comes in how do you quantify it in the game? How much effect does it have? How would historical leagues handle it . . . I think you'll have to show some kind of solid reasoning and how it should be done.

I'm going to work on my fictional league bias. I'm starting to understand why things that would appeal to me, with my loose constraint of overall baseball realism, would be hard to handle and account for when dealing with historical simulations. I see that this is a basic division in this community and that it must be hard for OOTP to maintain a balance and try to keep as many people happy as possible.

Now I see what you were talking about, tcblcommish, but that's no knock on you, Sweed. You're right, it's not quantifiable and therefore would have to be an on/off option. On for guys like me who would like to see what a fictional Tony Pena does for a pitching staff. Off for guys who don't want to speculate with a fuzzy concept that may gum up expected results.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by Rainers

Last year with the Yankees, Randy Johnson started the year with Posada catching for him. After begin the season with a losing record Joe Torre (an ex catcher) went with Flaherty, the backup catcher, and Johnson went the rest of the season with a winning record. If catchers have no affect on pitchers, how do we explain stories like these? And this is only one example of a pitcher who is more comfortable with a catcher.

Yeah, except Flaherty's gone now, Posada's caught most of Johnson's games this year, and Johnson still has a winning record, 13-9, with a somewhat respectable ERA of 4.92 (let's see how he does today - we NEED to have this guy be the BIG UNIT he was when you had him in Seattle; even better, the Arizona version).

As a matter of fact, I caught them on TV hugging each other (well, patting each other) after a recent victory. Bad example, Rainers, for this thread IMO.

Sigh. Oh, well.

[TNCubsFan]

As far as a catchers calling rating, I would say no. Piazza and Maddux as a battery would be a running teams delight but I would put my money on Pizza's and Mad Dogs team to win. Why? Maddux is going to call his own game, and even more importantly is going to hit his spots most of the time. More so when both were prime vintage models.

Whether a catcher can call a good game or not falls low on the list behind what the pitcher brings to the mound. I can call for a fastball up and in for a guy that dives on the first pitch. If the pitcher is "afraid" to throw it there and leaves it over the outside corner... well I must be a stupid catcher.

The confidence that a certain catcher gives a pitcher has more to do with his ability to block the pitchers best offspeed pitch in the dirt than when they call for it. Dont make baseball any more complicated than it is. Or to quote the classic "Bull Durham" line; "Dont think meat, it only hurts the team.

[tysok]

Originally Posted by Carplos

We should bring back the clutch rating, and throw in Veteran Presence and Proven Closer ratings.

Maybe a Joe Morgan-mode where the team with the highest average speed rating win the championship.

Yeah... and have smily faces that show how he feels about where he is... the more it's smiling the better he plays.

For the purpose of the game, disregard the things that are difficult to impossible to model. Calling a game has a small difference. Handling the pitching staff makes more difference. Mentality of a hitter or pitcher makes a difference on the field... all this would be difficult if not impossible to model in a simulation, so don't try or more than likely you'd get it wrong.

However, to just arbitrarily say it doesn't exist is as ridiculous as trying to incorporate a half-assed simulation of it. There are things behind the numbers that make a difference, things that can not be measured, quantified, and placed into a simulation.
I'm not talking about Joe Morgan blathering on about how that pitcher feels because that speedy guy is on base... in that regard he knows exactly nothing. When Rob Dibble or Goose Gossage start talking about what's going on in the pitchers head with that speedy guy on base I'll listen. When Cal Ripken, George Brett, or Tony Gwynn talk about hitting slumps and what's going on in a hitters head I'll listen. That isn't "hand me down culture"... that's talking about repeatedly observable events, or from personal experience.

[endgame]

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

loose constraint of overall baseball realism (is) hard to handle and account for when dealing with historical simulations. I see that this is a basic division in this community and that it must be hard for OOTP to maintain a balance and try to keep as many people happy as possible.

Great observation and understatement. I have enjoyed reading your fresh takes on various states of the game.

Over the last couple of years, IIRC, the focus of catcher/pitcher tandems in RL and OOTP centered specifically on catchers' skills with a knuckleball pitcher rather than 'calling skills', although I wouldn't discount that affect on the comfort zone of a pitcher.

I generally advocate any notion that adds 'relationships' to the game in a fictional environment whether based on personalities or skill dependency. One more variable that provides color and effect outside the range of an element affording complete control. As a rule, for me, variety is good.

To the point, anecdotal evidence ultimately prevails. In my case, I swear my pitchers all seem to "find the strike zone" a bit better with my backup catcher.

[HolyCow98]

I think the calling of the game more times than not...its a confidence/trust thing. When a pitcher trusts his catcher enough to throw any pitch at any time..in any situation...and know that he's going to block almost everything. Even the guys who are supposed to be good game callers....I'm not sure if its they are great at the strategy and art of calling the pitches as it is they have the trust and confidence of the pitcher.

Typically...with anything in life...you tend to have more success when you are confident in what your doing and trust those around you.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by Rainers

If catchers have no affect on pitchers, how do we explain stories like these?

Sabermetric studies are all about finding quantifiable information embedded in performance statistics. That Randy Johnson does, or does not perform better when Flaherty is catching is not enough information to say game-calling exists (or doesn't) as a part of Flaherty's fundamental skillset. The more relevant way of looking at it is "do _all_ the pitchers Flaherty catches pitch better with him behind the plate?"

If you can prove that, then you can prove that game-calling might be a fundamental skillset of a catcher.

I have read many people's studies on this (many here being probably 4-6). To date no statistically based study I have read has been able to identify a performance-based skill that follows a catcher. This doesn't mean the skill does not exist. But its an indicator that if the skill does exist its signal is much smaller than the noise of random variation.

With a little careful thought you an come up with a lot of reasons why RJ could have pitched better when Flaherty took over behind the plate that have nothing to do with Posada or Flaherty's ability to call pitches. DIPS nuances, for example, says that a pitcher's performance is highly influenced by the players defending behind him. Perhaps that varied. Perhaps he was struggling physically for a bit. Perhaps Flaherty is actually a better pure defensive catcher. Perhaps Posada was physically ailing or in a slump. Perhaps he pitched in Fenway a few more times than normal randomness dictates. Perhaps it was pure random fluctuation--has RJ had periods like that elsewhere in his career? Perhaps...

These are the kinds of skills, like clutchiness, that are extremely difficult to find in the data when applied across wide samples. I've seen a few studys that have gotten me convinced that "clutch" probably does exist, but that it's very small and influences a team by 2-4 runs in a season (at best). TangoTiger has the studies I'm talking about on his site someplace.

FWIW, the "laws" of randomness say that individual cases like Posada/Flaherty/RJ are going to happen. Given the number of people playing baseball over the number of years, it's a statistical guarantee--just like a run of 6 "tails" is going to happen if you flip coins enough times. So the proper answer for "how do you explain examples like that?" lies in material you learn in a Prob & Stat class. It would actually be a lot more intriguing if you didn't find that occuring. I mean, if you flip a coin 100,000 times and you never got a run of 6 tails, you would begin to postulize you were playing with a loaded coin.